David Frey <david@eos.lugs.ch> writes:
> > If it's not already on the list, I think the lprm bug (bug #8689, #8438,
> > #7611, #7589, #6085) should definitely count as critical.
> >
> > It's an important subsystem that's broken.
>
> I agree and sent a mail some months ago to debian-devel (is the lpr
> maintainer listening?)
Partially. I'd like to find a new maintainer for lpr.
I don't run lpr here anymore, so I cannot test it.
And nobody bothered to send me a patch or to maintain the package.
> The reason for this misbehaviour lies somewhere in rmjob.c where
> the FQDN is compared with the hostname, which always fails.
> [This was originally meant as security fix].
> I was too lazy to fix lpr (not being the maintainer); the hostname
> is written somehow into the spool-control file, while the FQDN is
> queried in the usual way (AFAIR); I reverted lpr in the end to 5.9-11.
Obviously the hostname should be expanded to FQDN before
comparing. In some places this seems to be done.
Sven
--
Sven Rudolph <sr1@inf.tu-dresden.de> ; WWW : http://www.sax.de/~sr1/
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .